User:Hwasnak/Water purification/Cwood1212 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Hwasnak


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Hwasnak/Water Purification
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Water purification

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * No

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes!
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * It appears to be, but I could not find a date for the source
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, I didn't think of anything I felt was missing. I thought the information was very relevant and detailed.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, and no.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Unsure, but they appear to be relatively current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Unsure
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * I thought that for the edit made, this source worked well and there wasn't any need for a "better" source -- it accurately added more information to the page.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Just one -- there is a period accidentally added in the second sentence.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It adds to my understanding of Lyster Bags, which I did not know about before, and is well written!
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I believe that the Lead section needs to be updated to reflect the changes in the Article Body
 * My only other minor edit was to remove a period that was accidentally added